Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies

This article proposes contemporary best-practice recommendations for stated preference (SP) studies used to inform decision making, grounded in the accumulated body of peer-reviewed literature. These recommendations consider the use of SP methods to estimate both use and non-use (passive-use) values, and cover the broad SP domain, including contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. We focus on applications to public goods in the context of the environment and human health but also consider ways in which the proposed recommendations might apply to other common areas of application. The recommendations recognize that SP results may be used and reused (benefit transfers) by governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations, and that all such applications must be considered. The intended result is a set of guidelines for SP studies that is more comprehensive than that of the original National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Blue Ribbon Panel on contingent valuation, is more germane to contemporary applications, and reflects the two decades of research since that time. We also distinguish between practices for which accumulated research is sufficient to support recommendations and those for which greater uncertainty remains. The goal of this article is to raise the quality of SP studies used to support decision making and promote research that will further enhance the practice of these studies worldwide.

[1]  K. Boyle,et al.  Reliability and Validity in Nonmarket Valuation , 2019 .

[2]  Danny Campbell,et al.  Disentangling the influence of knowledge on attribute non-attendance , 2017 .

[3]  Nicolas Jacquemet,et al.  Referenda Under Oath , 2017 .

[4]  Elena Y. Besedin,et al.  Biophysical Causality and Environmental Preference Elicitation: Evaluating the Validity of Welfare Analysis over Intermediate Outcomes , 2017 .

[5]  Erlend Dancke Sandorf,et al.  Valuing unfamiliar and complex environmental goods: A comparison of valuation workshops and internet panel surveys with videos , 2016 .

[6]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Will the alphabet soup of design criteria affect discrete choice experiment results , 2016 .

[7]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Alternative Value Elicitation Formats in Contingent Valuation: A New Hope , 2016 .

[8]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Investigating Internet and Mail Implementation of Stated-Preference Surveys While Controlling for Differences in Sample Frames , 2016 .

[9]  N. Lazar,et al.  The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose , 2016 .

[10]  D. Mccloskey,et al.  The Oxford Handbook of Professional Economic Ethics , 2016 .

[11]  Matthew C. Rousu,et al.  Which Deceptive Practices, If Any, Should Be Allowed in Experimental Economics Research? Results from Surveys of Applied Experimental Economists and Students , 2016 .

[12]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Chamberlin Meets Ciriacy‐Wantrup: Using Insights from Experimental Economics to Inform Stated Preference Research , 2016 .

[13]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Decision uncertainty in multi-attribute stated preference studies , 2016 .

[14]  John M. Rose,et al.  Experimental Design Criteria and Their Behavioural Efficiency: An Evaluation in the Field , 2015 .

[15]  R. Johnston,et al.  Multiscale Spatial Pattern in Nonuse Willingness to Pay: Applications to Threatened and Endangered Marine Species , 2015, Land Economics.

[16]  Catherine L. Kling,et al.  Understanding Behavioral Explanations of the WTP-WTA Divergence Through a Neoclassical Lens: Implications for Environmental Policy , 2015 .

[17]  K. Hall,et al.  Ecosystem Services Indicators: Improving the Linkage between Biophysical and Economic Analyses , 2015 .

[18]  Gregory Colson,et al.  Deception in Experiments: Towards Guidelines on use in Applied Economics Research , 2015, Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy.

[19]  K. Train,et al.  An Adding-up Test on Contingent Valuations of River and Lake Quality , 2015, Land Economics.

[20]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  The Influence of Design Dimensions on Stated Choices in an Environmental Context , 2015 .

[21]  Jay R. Corrigan,et al.  Three reasons to use annual payments in contingent valuation surveys: Convergent validity, discount rates, and mental accounting ☆ , 2015 .

[22]  S. B. Olsen,et al.  A Within‐Sample Investigation of Test–Retest Reliability in Choice Experiment Surveys with Real Economic Incentives , 2015 .

[23]  N. Hanley,et al.  Incorporating Outcome Uncertainty and Prior Outcome Beliefs in Stated Preferences , 2015, Land Economics.

[24]  Iain Fraser,et al.  Visual Attention and Attribute Attendance in Multi-Attribute Choice Experiments , 2015 .

[25]  D. Cantor,et al.  How Much Gets You How Much? Monetary Incentives and Response Rates in Household Surveys , 2015 .

[26]  Mark Oppe,et al.  Learning and satisficing: an analysis of sequence effects in health valuation. , 2015, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[27]  Sharon L. Lohr,et al.  Allocation for Dual Frame Telephone Surveys with Nonresponse , 2014 .

[28]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Household Decision Making and Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Parents and Their Children , 2014, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[29]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Modeling Spatial Patchiness and Hot Spots in Stated Preference Willingness to Pay , 2014 .

[30]  A. Daly,et al.  Handbook of Choice Modelling , 2014 .

[31]  Nick Hanley,et al.  The value of familiarity: Effects of knowledge and objective signals on willingness to pay for a public good , 2014 .

[32]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Social Norms, Morals and Self-interest as Determinants of Pro-environment Behaviours: The Case of Household Recycling , 2014 .

[33]  John M. Rose,et al.  Stated choice experimental design theory: the who, the what and the why , 2014 .

[34]  Daniel McFadden,et al.  The new science of pleasure: consumer choice behavior and the measurement of well-being , 2014 .

[35]  J. Herriges,et al.  The measurement of environmental and resource values : theory and methods , 2014 .

[36]  J. List,et al.  Consequentiality: A Theoretical and Experimental Exploration of a Single Binary Choice , 2014, Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.

[37]  Caspar G. Chorus,et al.  Stated choices and benefit estimates in the context of traffic calming schemes: utility maximization, regret minimization, or both? , 2014 .

[38]  Caroline Vass,et al.  Risk as an Attribute in Discrete Choice Experiments: A Systematic Review of the Literature , 2014, The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.

[39]  Sandra Notaro,et al.  Testing hypothetical bias with a real choice experiment using respondents' own money , 2014 .

[40]  Carl-Erik Särndal,et al.  Aspects of Responsive Design with Applications to the Swedish Living Conditions Survey , 2013 .

[41]  J. Whitehead,et al.  From Hopeless to Curious? Thoughts on Hausman's “Dubious to Hopeless” Critique of Contingent Valuation , 2013 .

[42]  T. Stevens,et al.  Oaths and hypothetical bias. , 2013, Journal of environmental management.

[43]  Berit Hasler,et al.  Spatially induced disparities in users' and non-users' WTP for water quality improvements—Testing the effect of multiple substitutes and distance decay , 2013 .

[44]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  What can we learn from benefit transfer errors? Evidence from 20 years of research on convergent validity , 2013 .

[45]  N. Hanley,et al.  Measuring the Local Costs of Conservation: A Provision Point Mechanism for Eliciting Willingness to Accept Compensation , 2013, Land Economics.

[46]  J. C. van den Bergh,et al.  Estimation of Distance-Decay Functions to Account for Substitution and Spatial Heterogeneity in Stated Preference Research , 2013, Land Economics.

[47]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  Summary Report of the AAPOR Task Force on Non-probability Sampling , 2013 .

[48]  Thomas Sterner,et al.  The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - A multiple country test of an oath script , 2013 .

[49]  J. Boyd,et al.  Using Ecological Production Theory to Define and Select Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation , 2013, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[50]  Roger Tourangeau,et al.  The Science of Web Surveys , 2013 .

[51]  James N. Sanchirico,et al.  Conservation values in marine ecosystem-based management , 2013 .

[52]  Eleanor Singer,et al.  The Use and Effects of Incentives in Surveys , 2013 .

[53]  J. Brick,et al.  Explaining Rising Nonresponse Rates in Cross-Sectional Surveys , 2013 .

[54]  S. Watson,et al.  Understanding the consequences of consequentiality: Testing the validity of stated preferences in the field , 2012 .

[55]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Valuation of Mortality Risk Attributable to Climate Change: Investigating the Effect of Survey Administration Modes on a VSL , 2012, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[56]  S. Navrud,et al.  Non-market valuation of forest goods and services: Good practice guidelines , 2012 .

[57]  Marianne Promberger,et al.  “Pay them if it works”: Discrete choice experiments on the acceptability of financial incentives to change health related behaviour , 2012, Social science & medicine.

[58]  K. Train,et al.  Adequate responsiveness to scope in contingent valuation , 2012 .

[59]  R. Carson Contingent Valuation: A Practical Alternative When Prices Aren't Available , 2012 .

[60]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Behavioral foundations of environmental economics and valuation , 2012 .

[61]  J. Hausman Contingent Valuation: From Dubious to Hopeless , 2012 .

[62]  Jinhua Zhao,et al.  From Exxon to BP: Has Some Number Become Better Than No Number? , 2012 .

[63]  S. Blumberg,et al.  Wireless substitution: state-level estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 2010-2011. , 2012, National health statistics reports.

[64]  Jeffrey Bennett,et al.  Climate change scepticism and public support for mitigation: Evidence from an Australian choice experiment , 2012 .

[65]  W. Botzen,et al.  Monetary Valuation of Insurance Against Flood Risk Under Climate Change , 2012 .

[66]  Michael Getzner,et al.  Temporal stability of individual preferences for river restoration in Austria using a choice experiment. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[67]  Tommy Stanley,et al.  Meta-Regression Analysis in Economics and Business , 2012 .

[68]  John M. Rose,et al.  Directional heterogeneity in WTP models for environmental valuation , 2012 .

[69]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Protester or Non‐Protester: A Binary State? On the Use (and Non‐Use) of Latent Class Models to Analyse Protesting in Economic Valuation , 2012 .

[70]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. , 2012, Health economics.

[71]  Bas Donkers,et al.  Complexity Effects in Choice Experiment–Based Models , 2012 .

[72]  H. Lemij,et al.  Surveillance for ocular hypertension: an evidence synthesis and economic evaluation. , 2012, Health technology assessment.

[73]  John Rolfe,et al.  Distance Decay Functions for Iconic Assets: Assessing National Values to Protect the Health of the Great Barrier Reef in Australia , 2012 .

[74]  Elena Y. Besedin,et al.  Integrating Ecology and Economics for Restoration: Using Ecological Indicators in Valuation of Ecosystem Services , 2012 .

[75]  Stephane Hess,et al.  Accounting for Latent Attitudes in Willingness-to-Pay Studies: The Case of Coastal Water Quality Improvements in Tobago , 2012 .

[76]  S. Mourato,et al.  ‘When to Take “No” for an Answer’? Using Entreaties to Reduce Protests in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2012 .

[77]  John M. Rose,et al.  Can scale and coefficient heterogeneity be separated in random coefficients models? , 2012 .

[78]  D. Rigby,et al.  The Self Selection of Complexity in Choice Experiments , 2012 .

[79]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  Inferred vs Stated Attribute Non-Attendance in Choice Experiments: A Study of Doctors' Prescription Behaviour , 2012 .

[80]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence Based User's Guide , 2012 .

[81]  John M. Rose,et al.  Inferring attribute non-attendance from stated choice data: implications for willingness to pay estimates and a warning for stated choice experiment design , 2012 .

[82]  B Hasler,et al.  Scenario realism and welfare estimates in choice experiments--a non-market valuation study on the European water framework directive. , 2012, Journal of environmental management.

[83]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. , 2012, Health economics.

[84]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation: A Comprehensive Bibliography and History , 2012 .

[85]  Kathleen Segerson,et al.  Enhancing the Content Validity of Stated Preference Valuation: The Structure and Function of Ecological Indicators , 2012, Land Economics.

[86]  R. Johnston,et al.  Valuing Farmland Protection: Do Empirical Results and Policy Guidance Depend on the Econometric Fine Print? , 2011 .

[87]  Jing Zhang,et al.  Unraveling the Choice Format Effect: A Context-Dependent Random Utility Model , 2011, Land Economics.

[88]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Non-attendance to attributes in environmental choice analysis: a latent class specification , 2011 .

[89]  Don A. Dillman,et al.  Surveying the General Public over the Internet Using Address-Based Sampling and Mail Contact Procedures , 2011 .

[90]  John A. List,et al.  Why Economists Should Conduct Field Experiments and 14 Tips for Pulling One Off , 2011 .

[91]  Henrik Lindhjem,et al.  Using Internet in Stated Preference Surveys: A Review and Comparison of Survey Modes , 2011 .

[92]  N. Hanley,et al.  How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments☆ , 2011 .

[93]  Morgan M. Millar,et al.  Improving Response To Web and Mixed-Mode Surveys , 2011 .

[94]  Andrew Lloyd,et al.  Conjoint analysis applications in health--a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[95]  Iain Fraser,et al.  A general treatment of ‘don't know’ responses from choice experiments , 2011 .

[96]  Dan Rigby,et al.  Skew and attribute non-attendance within the bayesian mixed logit model , 2011 .

[97]  Carsten Lynge Jensen,et al.  Attending to the Reasons for Attribute Non-attendance in Choice Experiments , 2011 .

[98]  S. Navrud,et al.  Are Internet Surveys an Alternative to Face-to Face Interviews in Contingent Valuation? , 2011 .

[99]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Exploring Scale Effects of Best/Worst Rank Ordered Choice Data to Estimate Benefits of Tourism in Alpine Grazing Commons , 2011 .

[100]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Does the number of choice sets matter? Results from a web survey applying a discrete choice experiment. , 2011, Health economics.

[101]  John Rolfe,et al.  Comparing Responses from Internet and Paper-Based Collection Methods in more Complex Stated Preference Environmental Valuation Surveys , 2011 .

[102]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A discrete choice model with endogenous attribute attendance , 2011 .

[103]  Klaus Glenk,et al.  How Sure Can You Be? A Framework for Considering Delivery Uncertainty in Benefit Assessments Based on Stated Preference Methods , 2011 .

[104]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  A Common Nomenclature for Stated Preference Elicitation Approaches , 2011 .

[105]  Joel Huber,et al.  Survey Mode Effects on Valuation of Environmental Goods , 2010, International journal of environmental research and public health.

[106]  Frank Lupi,et al.  Stated Choice Experiments with Complex Ecosystem Changes: The Effect of Information Formats on Estimated Variances and Choice Parameters , 2010 .

[107]  J. Shogren,et al.  Preference Elicitation Under Oath , 2010 .

[108]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Monitoring Choice Task Attribute Attendance in Nonmarket Valuation of Multiple Park Management Services: Does It Matter? , 2010, Land Economics.

[109]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Truth in Consequentiality: Theory and Field Evidence on Discrete Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[110]  Basil Sharp,et al.  Choice Experiment Adaptive Design Benefits: A Case Study , 2010 .

[111]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  The Benefit-Transfer Challenges , 2010 .

[112]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Spatial Preference Heterogeneity: A Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[113]  Robert L. Hicks,et al.  Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach , 2010 .

[114]  J. Deshazo,et al.  Is an Ounce of Prevention Worth a Pound of Cure? Comparing Demand for Public Prevention and Treatment Policies , 2010, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[115]  Masahide Watanabe Nonparametric Estimation of Mean Willingness to Pay from Discrete Response Valuation Data , 2010 .

[116]  M. Bliemer,et al.  Construction of experimental designs for mixed logit models allowing for correlation across choice observations , 2010 .

[117]  David Hoyos,et al.  The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments , 2010 .

[118]  T. Flynn Valuing citizen and patient preferences in health: recent developments in three types of best–worst scaling , 2010, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[119]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Exchange Rules and the Incentive Compatibility of Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[120]  Jonathan E. Alevy,et al.  How Can Behavioral Economics Inform Nonmarket Valuation? An Example from the Preference Reversal Literature , 2010, Land Economics.

[121]  Roy Brouwer,et al.  Choice Certainty and Consistency in Repeated Choice Experiments , 2010 .

[122]  Patricia A. Champ,et al.  Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment , 2010, Land Economics.

[123]  Brett Day,et al.  Ordering anomalies in choice experiments , 2010 .

[124]  Geoffrey R. Gerdes,et al.  Distributional Preferences and the Incidence of Costs and Benefits in Climate Change Policy , 2010 .

[125]  D. Hensher,et al.  Parameter transfer of common-metric attributes in choice analysis: implications for willingness to pay , 2010 .

[126]  Mimako Kobayashi,et al.  Willingness to Pay Estimation When Protest Beliefs are not Separable from the Public Good Definition , 2010 .

[127]  E. Verhoef,et al.  Biases in Willingness-to-Pay Measures from Multinomial Logit Estimates Due to Unobserved Heterogeneity , 2010 .

[128]  Andrew Daly,et al.  Choice Modelling: The State-of-the-art and the State-of-practice: Proceedings from the Inaugural International Choice Modelling Conference , 2010 .

[129]  Pernilla Ivehammar The Payment Vehicle Used in CV Studies of Environmental Goods Does Matter , 2009 .

[130]  Justin Baker,et al.  Models of Location Choice and Willingness to Pay to Avoid Hurricane Risks for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees , 2009, International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters.

[131]  J. Deshazo,et al.  Scenario Adjustment in Stated Preference Research , 2009 .

[132]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Bridging the gap between the field and the lab: Environmental goods, policy maker input, and consequentiality , 2009 .

[133]  I. Bateman,et al.  Procedural Invariance Testing of the One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Elicitation Method , 2009, The Review of Economics and Statistics.

[134]  P. Boxall,et al.  Complexity in Choice Experiments: Choice of the Status Quo Alternative and Implications for Welfare Measurement , 2009 .

[135]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias , 2009, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[136]  Alan Krupnick,et al.  The Definition and Choice of Environmental Commodities for Nonmarket Valuation , 2009 .

[137]  Kota Asano,et al.  Distribution Free Consistent Estimation of Mean WTP in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 2009 .

[138]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Incentive compatibility tests of choice experiment value elicitation questions , 2009 .

[139]  Michiel C.J. Bliemer,et al.  Constructing Efficient Stated Choice Experimental Designs , 2009 .

[140]  Randall S. Rosenberger,et al.  Selection Effects in Meta-Analysis and Benefit Transfer: Avoiding Unintended Consequences , 2009, Land Economics.

[141]  Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al.  Status Quo Effect in Choice Experiments: Empirical Evidence on Attitudes and Choice Task Complexity , 2009, Land Economics.

[142]  John M. Rose,et al.  Simplifying choice through attribute preservation or non-attendance: Implications for willingness to pay , 2009 .

[143]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Modelling attribute non-attendance in choice experiments for rural landscape valuation , 2009 .

[144]  M. Ryan,et al.  Comparing welfare estimates from payment card contingent valuation and discrete choice experiments. , 2009, Health economics.

[145]  Peter Goos,et al.  An Efficient Algorithm for Constructing Bayesian Optimal Choice Designs , 2009 .

[146]  John M. Rose,et al.  Incorporating model uncertainty into the generation of efficient stated choice experiments: A model averaging approach , 2009 .

[147]  Vikki Entwistle,et al.  Rationalising the 'irrational': a think aloud study of discrete choice experiment responses. , 2009, Health economics.

[148]  Iain Fraser,et al.  Model selection for the mixed logit with Bayesian estimation , 2009 .

[149]  John Rolfe,et al.  The impact of offering two versus three alternatives in choice modelling experiments , 2009 .

[150]  N. Hanley,et al.  Coherent Arbitrariness: On Value Uncertainty for Environmental Goods , 2009, Land Economics.

[151]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Convergent Validity of Attribute-Based, Choice Questions in Stated-Preference Studies , 2009 .

[152]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland , 2008 .

[153]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps , 2008 .

[154]  M. Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[155]  Shalini P. Vajjhala,et al.  Determining the Extent of Market and Extent of Resource for Stated Preference Survey Design Using Mapping Methods , 2008 .

[156]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Assessing the spatial dependence of welfare estimates obtained from discrete choice experiments , 2008 .

[157]  John M. Rose,et al.  Design Efficiency for Non-Market Valuation with Choice Modelling: How to Measure it, What to Report and Why , 2008 .

[158]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Designing Discrete Choice Experiments: Do Optimal Designs Come at a Price? , 2008 .

[159]  J. Lusk,et al.  Preferences for environmental quality under uncertainty , 2008 .

[160]  Jorge E. Araña,et al.  Do emotions matter? Coherent preferences under anchoring and emotional effects , 2008 .

[161]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  The Impact of Nonresponse Rates on Nonresponse Bias A Meta-Analysis , 2008 .

[162]  M. Thiene,et al.  Using Flexible Taste Distributions to Value Collective Reputation for Environmentally Friendly Production Methods , 2008 .

[163]  M. Hanemann,et al.  Emotions and decision rules in discrete choice experiments for valuing health care programmes for the elderly. , 2008, Journal of health economics.

[164]  John M. Rose,et al.  Designing efficient stated choice experiments in the presence of reference alternatives , 2008 .

[165]  Jürgen Meyerhoff,et al.  Do protest responses to a contingent valuation question and a choice experiment differ? , 2008 .

[166]  Michael W. Link,et al.  A Comparison of Address-Based Sampling (ABS) Versus Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) for General Population Surveys , 2008 .

[167]  M. Johannesson,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay without Bias using Follow-up Certainty Statements: Comparisons between Probably/Definitely and a 10-point Certainty Scale , 2008 .

[168]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Learning design contingent valuation (LDCV): NOAA guidelines, preference learning and coherent arbitrariness , 2008 .

[169]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Incorporating Discontinuous Preferences into the Analysis of Discrete Choice Experiments , 2008 .

[170]  T. Cameron,et al.  Popular Support for Climate Change Mitigation: Evidence from a General Population Mail Survey , 2008 .

[171]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Decoy Effects in Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation: Asymmetric Dominance , 2008, Land Economics.

[172]  Charles F. Manski,et al.  Identification for Prediction and Decision , 2008 .

[173]  Magnus Johannesson,et al.  Eliciting Willingness to Pay Without Bias: Evidence from a Field Experiment , 2008 .

[174]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Modeling the effects of including/excluding attributes in choice experiments on systematic and random components , 2007 .

[175]  R. Johnston,et al.  Willingness to Pay for Agricultural Land Preservation and Policy Process Attributes: Does the Method Matter? , 2007 .

[176]  M. Ryan,et al.  Models of intrapartum care and women’s trade‐offs in remote and rural Scotland: a mixed‐methods study , 2007, BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology.

[177]  Edith D. de Leeuw,et al.  The Influence of Advance Letters on Response in Telephone Surveys A Meta-Analysis , 2007 .

[178]  J. Knetsch Biased valuations, damage assessments, and policy choices: The choice of measure matters ☆ , 2007 .

[179]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Sensitive questions in surveys. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[180]  Neil A. Powe,et al.  Redesigning Environmental Valuation: Mixing Methods Within Stated Preference Techniques , 2007 .

[181]  Arne Risa Hole,et al.  A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures. , 2007, Health economics.

[182]  I. Bateman,et al.  Valuing risk reductions: Testing for range biases in payment card and random card sorting methods , 2007 .

[183]  Geoffrey R. Gerdes,et al.  Valuing publicly sponsored research projects: Risks, scenario adjustments, and inattention , 2007 .

[184]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Incentive and informational properties of preference questions , 2007 .

[185]  Riccardo Scarpa,et al.  Designs with a priori information for nonmarket valuation with choice experiments: A Monte Carlo study , 2007 .

[186]  J. Roosen,et al.  Scope insensitivity in health risk reduction studies: A comparison of choice experiments and the contingent valuation method for valuing safer food , 2007 .

[187]  J. Oviedo,et al.  Comparing Payment-Vehicle Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies for Recreational Use in Two Protected Spanish Forests , 2007 .

[188]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Developing attributes and levels for discrete choice experiments using qualitative methods , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[189]  F. Reed Johnson,et al.  Experimental Design For Stated-Choice Studies , 2006 .

[190]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Anchoring and Yea-saying with Private Goods: An Experiment , 2006 .

[191]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  The aggregation of environmental benefit values: Welfare measures, distance decay and total WTP , 2006 .

[192]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Reducing barriers in future benefit transfers: Needed improvements in primary study design and reporting , 2006 .

[193]  Mickael Bech,et al.  Ordering effect and price sensitivity in discrete choice experiments: need we worry? , 2006, Health economics.

[194]  D. Hensher How do respondents process stated choice experiments? Attribute consideration under varying information load , 2006 .

[195]  Colin Camerer,et al.  Modeling the Psychology of Consumer and Firm Behavior with Behavioral Economics , 2006, Journal of Marketing Research.

[196]  Emily Lancsar,et al.  Deleting 'irrational' responses from discrete choice experiments: a case of investigating or imposing preferences? , 2006, Health economics.

[197]  Alan Krupnick,et al.  Valuation of Natural Resource Improvements in the Adirondacks , 2006, Land Economics.

[198]  Peter Goos,et al.  A Comparison of Criteria to Design Efficient Choice Experiments , 2006 .

[199]  Arthur J. Caplan,et al.  Cheap Talk Reconsidered: New Evidence From CVM , 2006 .

[200]  Robert M. Groves,et al.  Responsive design for household surveys: tools for actively controlling survey errors and costs , 2006 .

[201]  Robert J. Johnston,et al.  Is hypothetical bias universal? Validating contingent valuation responses using a binding public referendum , 2006 .

[202]  Julian C. Jamison,et al.  To Deceive or Not to Deceive: The Effect of Deception on Behavior in Future Laboratory Experiments , 2006 .

[203]  J. Meyerhoff,et al.  Protest beliefs in contingent valuation: Explaining their motivation , 2006 .

[204]  K. S. Carson,et al.  Necessary Conditions for Demand Revelation in Double Referenda , 2006 .

[205]  Zhishi Wang,et al.  Comparison of contingent valuation and choice experiment in solid waste management programs in Macao , 2006 .

[206]  David F. Layton,et al.  Embracing Model Uncertainty: Strategies for Response Pooling and Model Averaging , 2006 .

[207]  David A. Hensher,et al.  Revealing Differences in Willingness to Pay due to the Dimensionality of Stated Choice Designs: An Initial Assessment , 2006 .

[208]  E. McColl Cognitive Interviewing. A Tool for Improving Questionnaire Design , 2006, Quality of Life Research.

[209]  Jeffrey Bennett,et al.  A comparison of contingent valuation and choice modelling with second-order interactions , 2006 .

[210]  Richard D. Smith,et al.  It's not just what you do, it's the way that you do it: the effect of different payment card formats and survey administration on willingness to pay for health gain. , 2006, Health economics.

[211]  J. Louviere,et al.  Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices , 2005 .

[212]  T. Cameron,et al.  Comprehensive selectivity assessment for a major consumer panel: attitudes toward government regulation of environment, health and safety risks , 2005 .

[213]  W. Adamowicz,et al.  Serial Nonparticipation in Repeated Discrete Choice Models , 2005 .

[214]  Robert E. Wright,et al.  Price vector effects in choice experiments: an empirical test , 2005 .

[215]  C. Starmer,et al.  Preference Anomalies, Preference Elicitation and the Discovered Preference Hypothesis , 2005 .

[216]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Destination Choice Models for Rock Climbing in the Northeastern Alps: A Latent-Class Approach Based on Intensity of Preferences , 2005, Land Economics.

[217]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Rethinking the scope test as a criterion for validity in contingent valuation , 2005 .

[218]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Economic valuation of policies for managing acidity in remote mountain lakes: Examining validity through scope sensitivity testing , 2005, Aquatic Sciences.

[219]  R. Scarpa,et al.  Benefit Estimates for Landscape Improvements: Sequential Bayesian Design and Respondents’ Rationality in a Choice Experiment , 2005, Land Economics.

[220]  Shawn A. Ross,et al.  Survey Methodology , 2005, The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Sociology of Religion.

[221]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Multiple-use management of forest recreation sites: a spatially explicit choice experiment , 2005 .

[222]  Juan de Dios Ortúzar,et al.  Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence , 2005 .

[223]  Erwin H. Bulte,et al.  The effect of varying the causes of environmental problems on stated WTP values : Evidence from a field study , 2005 .

[224]  K. Boyle,et al.  Dynamic Learning and Context-Dependence in Sequential, Attribute-Based, Stated-Preference Valuation Questions , 2005, Land Economics.

[225]  Knut Veisten,et al.  Scope insensitivity in contingent valuation of complex environmental amenities. , 2004, Journal of environmental management.

[226]  J. A. Barrios Generalized sample selection bias correction under RUM , 2004 .

[227]  James J. Murphy,et al.  Is Cheap Talk Effective at Eliminating Hypothetical Bias in a Provision Point Mechanism? , 2004 .

[228]  Thomas Laitila,et al.  Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques: A Manual , 2004 .

[229]  F. Conrad,et al.  Spacing, Position, and Order Interpretive Heuristics for Visual Features of Survey Questions , 2004 .

[230]  Michael D. Kaplowitz,et al.  Multiple Methods for Developing and Evaluating a Stated‐Choice Questionnaire to Value Wetlands , 2004 .

[231]  P. Riach,et al.  Deceptive Field Experiments of Discrimination: Are They Ethical? , 2004 .

[232]  D. Whittington Ethical Issues with Contingent Valuation Surveys in Developing Countries: A Note on Informed Consent and Other Concerns , 2004 .

[233]  Joanna Coast,et al.  Issues arising from the use of qualitative methods in health economics , 2004, Journal of health services research & policy.

[234]  Elizabeth Martin,et al.  METHODS FOR TESTING AND EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONS , 2004 .

[235]  T. Schroeder,et al.  Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks , 2004 .

[236]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Investigating Insensitivity to Scope: A Split-Sample Test of Perceived Scheme Realism , 2004, Land Economics.

[237]  Robert P. Berrens,et al.  Explaining Disparities between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values: Further Investigation Using Meta-Analysis , 2004 .

[238]  M. Ryan A comparison of stated preference methods for estimating monetary values. , 2004, Health Economics.

[239]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[240]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews , 2003, Land Economics.

[241]  J. Lusk,et al.  Effects of Cheap Talk on Consumer Willingness‐To‐Pay for Golden Rice , 2003 .

[242]  D. Hantula,et al.  Applied behavioral economics and consumer choice , 2003 .

[243]  James J. Murphy,et al.  A Meta-analysis of Hypothetical Bias in Stated Preference Valuation , 2003 .

[244]  R. Kopp,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill , 2003 .

[245]  Nick Hanley,et al.  Aggregating the benefits of environmental improvements: distance-decay functions for use and non-use values. , 2003, Journal of environmental management.

[246]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  Externally validating contingent valuation: an open-space survey and referendum in Corvallis, Oregon , 2003 .

[247]  Christian A. Vossler,et al.  A criterion validity test of the contingent valuation method: comparing hypothetical and actual voting behavior for a public referendum , 2003 .

[248]  Ta Theo Arentze,et al.  Transport stated choice responses: effects of task complexity, presentation format and literacy , 2003 .

[249]  David A. Hensher,et al.  The Mixed Logit Model: the State of Practice and Warnings for the Unwary , 2001 .

[250]  M. Ryan,et al.  Revisiting the axiom of completeness in health care. , 2003, Health economics.

[251]  Peter Martinsson,et al.  Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics. , 2003, Health economics.

[252]  Susana Mourato,et al.  Elicitation Format and Sensitivity to Scope , 2003 .

[253]  A. Karlstrom,et al.  A Simple Method of Incorporating Income Effects into Logit and Nested‐Logit Models: Theory and Application , 2003 .

[254]  N. Hanley,et al.  Choice modelling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? , 2002 .

[255]  Dana Marie Bauer,et al.  Spatial Factors and Stated Preference Values for Public Goods: Considerations for Rural Land Use , 2002, Land Economics.

[256]  N. Hanley,et al.  Valuing the non-market benefits of wild goose conservation: a comparison of interview and group-based approaches , 2002 .

[257]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Alternative Non-market Value-Elicitation Methods: Are the Underlying Preferences the Same? , 2002 .

[258]  Michel Wedel,et al.  Profile Construction in Experimental Choice Designs for Mixed Logit Models , 2002 .

[259]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  Does don't know mean no? Analysis of 'don't know' responses in dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions , 2002 .

[260]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Provision Point Mechanisms and Field Validity Tests of Contingent Valuation , 2002 .

[261]  T. Cameron,et al.  Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change , 2002 .

[262]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Individual Option Prices for Climate Change Mitigation , 2002 .

[263]  J. R. DeShazo,et al.  Designing Choice Sets for Stated Preference Methods: The Effects of Complexity on Choice Consistency , 2002 .

[264]  Timothy C. Haab,et al.  Valuing Environmental and Natural Resources: The Econometrics of Non-Market Valuation , 2002 .

[265]  P. Clarke Testing the convergent validity of the contingent valuation and travel cost methods in valuing the benefits of health care. , 2002, Health economics.

[266]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Values and Reminders of Substitute Goods: Testing for Framing Effects with Choice Modelling , 2002 .

[267]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  The private provision of public goods: tests of a provision point mechanism for funding green power programs , 2002 .

[268]  Alan Randall,et al.  The Effect of Resource Quality Information on Resource Injury Perceptions and Contingent Values , 2002 .

[269]  Arthur Lewbel,et al.  Estimating Features of a Distribution from Binomial Data , 2001 .

[270]  F. Johnson,et al.  Sources and Effects of Utility-Theoretic Inconsistency in Stated-Preference Surveys , 2001 .

[271]  Joffre Swait,et al.  Choice Environment, Market Complexity, and Consumer Behavior: A Theoretical and Empirical Approach for Incorporating Decision Complexity into Models of Consumer Choice , 2001 .

[272]  John A. List,et al.  What Experimental Protocol Influence Disparities Between Actual and Hypothetical Stated Values? , 2001 .

[273]  Raquel Carrasco,et al.  Binary Choice With Binary Endogenous Regressors in Panel Data , 2001 .

[274]  P. Corso,et al.  Valuing Mortality-Risk Reduction: Using Visual Aids to Improve the Validity of Contingent Valuation , 2001 .

[275]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Donation Payment Mechanisms and Contingent Valuation: An Empirical Study of Hypothetical Bias , 2001 .

[276]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Bound and path effects in double and triple bounded dichotomous choice contingent valuation , 2001 .

[277]  J. Swait,et al.  The Influence of Task Complexity on Consumer Choice: A Latent Class Model of Decision Strategy Switching , 2001 .

[278]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  A Comparison of Conjoint Analysis Response Formats , 2001 .

[279]  M. Hanemann,et al.  One-and-One-Half-Bound Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 2001, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[280]  J. Hoehn,et al.  Do focus groups and individual interviews reveal the same information for natural resource valuation , 2001 .

[281]  Angela Bate,et al.  Testing the assumptions of rationality, continuity and symmetry when applying discrete choice experiments in health care , 2001 .

[282]  D. Hensher,et al.  Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications , 2000 .

[283]  D. McFadden,et al.  MIXED MNL MODELS FOR DISCRETE RESPONSE , 2000 .

[284]  R M Groves,et al.  Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.

[285]  J. Bennett,et al.  Minimising Payment Vehicle Bias in Contingent Valuation Studies , 2000 .

[286]  Ian Witten,et al.  Data Mining , 2000 .

[287]  Erik Meijer,et al.  Measuring Welfare Effects in Models with Random Coefficients , 2000 .

[288]  A. Lewbel,et al.  Semiparametric qualitative response model estimation with unknown heteroscedasticity or instrumental variables , 2000 .

[289]  K. Train,et al.  On the Similarity of Classical and Bayesian Estimates of Individual Mean Partworths , 2000 .

[290]  Mark Morrison,et al.  Aggregation Biases in Stated Preference Studies , 2000 .

[291]  Christopher Cornwell,et al.  Survey Response‐Related Biases in Contingent Valuation: Concepts, Remedies, and Empirical Application to Valuing Aquatic Plant Management , 2000 .

[292]  B. Jorgensen,et al.  Protest responses and willingness to pay: attitude toward paying for stormwater pollution abatement , 2000 .

[293]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence , 2000 .

[294]  E. Singer,et al.  The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. , 2000, Public opinion quarterly.

[295]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  A meta-analysis of wetland contingent valuation studies , 1999 .

[296]  R. Carson Contingent Valuation: A User's Guide† , 1999 .

[297]  J. Angrist,et al.  Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with Funding from Estimation of Limited-dependent Variable Models with Dummy Endogenous Regressors: Simple Strategies for Empirical Practice , 2011 .

[298]  Susan M. Chilton,et al.  Do focus groups contribute anything to the contingent valuation process , 1999 .

[299]  Joan L. Walker,et al.  Extended Framework for Modeling Choice Behavior , 1999 .

[300]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Public Attitudes to Contingent Valuation and Public Consultation1 , 1999, Environmental Values.

[301]  T. F. Weaver,et al.  Estimating Willingness to Pay and Resource Tradeoffs with Different Payment Mechanisms: An Evaluation of a Funding Guarantee for Watershed Management , 1999 .

[302]  J. Coast The appropriate uses of qualitative methods in health economics. , 1999, Health economics.

[303]  R. G. Cummings,et al.  Unbiased Value Estimates for Environmental Goods: A Cheap Talk Design for the Contingent Valuation Method , 1999 .

[304]  Gregory L. Poe,et al.  Voluntary revelation of the demand for public goods using a provision point mechanism , 1999 .

[305]  Robin Gregory,et al.  Why the WTA-WTP disparity matters , 1999 .

[306]  J. Whitehead,et al.  Are Hypothetical Referenda Incentive Compatible? A comment , 1999, Journal of Political Economy.

[307]  M. Ryan Using conjoint analysis to take account of patient preferences and go beyond health outcomes: an application to in vitro fertilisation. , 1999, Social science & medicine.

[308]  Nicholas E. Flores,et al.  Sequencing and Valuing Public Goods , 1998 .

[309]  K. Rollins,et al.  The Case for Diminishing Marginal Existence Values , 1998 .

[310]  Raquel Carrasco,et al.  Binary Choice with Binary Endogenous Regressors in Panel Data: Estimating the Effect of Fertility on Female Labor Participation , 1998 .

[311]  Daniel Kahneman,et al.  Referendum contingent valuation, anchoring, and willingness to pay for public goods , 1998 .

[312]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Resource Quality Information and Validity of Willingness to Pay in Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[313]  John D. Hey,et al.  Experimental economics and deception: A comment , 1998 .

[314]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Referendum Design and Contingent Valuation: The NOAA Panel's No-Vote Recommendation , 1998, Review of Economics and Statistics.

[315]  J. Louviere,et al.  Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation , 1998 .

[316]  K. Boyle,et al.  Anchoring and Adjustment in Single-Bounded, Contingent-Valuation Questions , 1997 .

[317]  B. Kriström Spike Models in Contingent Valuation , 1997 .

[318]  I. Bateman,et al.  Budget-Constraint, Temporal, and Question-Ordering Effects in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1997 .

[319]  Jeffrey Englin,et al.  Respondent Experience and Contingent Valuation of Environmental Goods , 1997 .

[320]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Using Donation Mechanisms to Value Nonuse Benefits from Public Goods , 1997 .

[321]  I. Bateman,et al.  A Test of the Theory of Reference-Dependent Preferences , 1997 .

[322]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Does Part-Whole Bias Exist? An Experimental Investigation , 1997 .

[323]  J. Loomis,et al.  The effect of distance on willingness to pay values: a case study of wetlands and salmon in California , 1997 .

[324]  Clifford Nowell,et al.  Implementing the voluntary contribution game: A field experiment , 1996 .

[325]  V. Kerry Smith,et al.  Do Contingent Valuation Estimates Pass a "Scope" Test? A Meta-analysis , 1996 .

[326]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  A comparison of stated preference methods for environmental valuation , 1996 .

[327]  William D. Schulze,et al.  A Test for Payment Card Biases , 1996 .

[328]  Jean C. Buzby,et al.  Differences between continuous and discrete contingent value estimates , 1996 .

[329]  J. Loomis How large is the extent of the market for public goods: evidence from a nationwide contingent valuation survey , 1996 .

[330]  Peter A. Diamond,et al.  Testing the Internal Consistency of Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1996 .

[331]  Glenn C. Blomquist,et al.  Contingent Valuation When Respondents Are Ambivalent , 1995 .

[332]  M. Teisl,et al.  Test-Retest Reliability of Contingent Valuation with Independent Sample Pretest and Posttest Control Groups , 1995 .

[333]  Randall A. Kramer,et al.  An Independent Sample Test of Yea-Saying and Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous-Choice Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[334]  Anna Alberini,et al.  Optimal Designs for Discrete Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys: Single-Bound, Double-Bound, and Bivariate Models , 1995 .

[335]  Stephen K. Swallow,et al.  Contingent Valuation Focus Groups: Insights from Ethnographic Interview Techniques , 1995, Agricultural and Resource Economics Review.

[336]  R. Carson,et al.  Sequencing and Nesting in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1995 .

[337]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation Surveys and Tests of Insensitivity to Scope , 1995 .

[338]  John Quiggin,et al.  Estimation Using Contingent Valuation Data from a Dichotomous Choice with Follow-Up Questionnaire , 1994 .

[339]  J. Hausman,et al.  Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number? , 1994 .

[340]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation , 1994 .

[341]  J. Louviere,et al.  Combining Revealed and Stated Preference Methods for Valuing Environmental Amenities , 1994 .

[342]  Keith Chrzan,et al.  Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis , 1994 .

[343]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  The Issue of Scope in Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[344]  J. Louviere,et al.  The Role of the Scale Parameter in the Estimation and Comparison of Multinomial Logit Models , 1993 .

[345]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Design of Sequential Experiments for Contingent Valuation Studies , 1993 .

[346]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  The role of question order and respondent experience in contingent-valuation studies. , 1993 .

[347]  A. E. Luloff,et al.  Protest Bidders in Contingent Valuation , 1992 .

[348]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Statistical Efficiency of Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1991 .

[349]  L. Feick LATENT CLASS ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS THAT INCLUDE DON'T KNOW RESPONSES , 1989 .

[350]  J. Andreoni Giving with Impure Altruism: Applications to Charity and Ricardian Equivalence , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[351]  John C. Bergstrom,et al.  Information Effects in Contingent Markets , 1989 .

[352]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method , 1989 .

[353]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Test-Retest Reliability of the Contingent Valuation Method: A Comparison of General Population and Visitor Responses , 1989 .

[354]  William H. Desvousges,et al.  Focus Groups and Risk Communication: The “Science” of Listening to Data , 1988 .

[355]  D. Morgan Focus groups for qualitative research. , 1988, Hospital guest relations report.

[356]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Welfare Measurements Using Contingent Valuation: A Comparison of Techniques , 1988 .

[357]  R. Gibbons,et al.  Cheap Talk Can Matter in Bargaining , 1988 .

[358]  Theodore Groves,et al.  Information, Incentives, and Economic Mechanisms: Essays in Honor of Leonid Hurwicz , 1987 .

[359]  Timothy O'Riordan,et al.  Valuing Environmental Goods: An Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method , 1987 .

[360]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Consumer Attitudes and Voluntary Rate Schedules for Public Utilities , 1987 .

[361]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Efficient Estimation Methods for "Closed-ended' Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1987 .

[362]  D. McFadden The Choice Theory Approach to Market Research , 1986 .

[363]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Handbook of Survey Research , 1985 .

[364]  Richard G. Walsh,et al.  Effect of distance on the preservation value of water quality , 1985 .

[365]  James D. Wright,et al.  Handbook of Survey Research. , 1985 .

[366]  P. Schmidt,et al.  Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. , 1984 .

[367]  W. Michael Hanemann,et al.  Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses , 1984 .

[368]  John B. Kidd,et al.  Judgement under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biasses , 1983 .

[369]  M. Thayer Contingent valuation techniques for assessing environmental impacts: Further evidence , 1981 .

[370]  W. W. Muir,et al.  Regression Diagnostics: Identifying Influential Data and Sources of Collinearity , 1980 .

[371]  G. Marwell,et al.  Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. II. Provision Points, Stakes, Experience, and the Free-Rider Problem , 1980, American Journal of Sociology.

[372]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Measuring Values of Extramarket Goods: Are Indirect Measures Biased? , 1979 .

[373]  Edward G. Carmines,et al.  Reliability and Validity Assessment , 1979 .

[374]  G. Marwell,et al.  Experiments on the Provision of Public Goods. I. Resources, Interest, Group Size, and the Free-Rider Problem , 1979, American Journal of Sociology.

[375]  D. Dillman Mail and telephone surveys : the total design method , 1979 .

[376]  P. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook , 1978 .

[377]  Daniel A. Graham,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis Under Uncertainty , 1977 .

[378]  C. Manski The structure of random utility models , 1977 .

[379]  Vithala R. Rao,et al.  Conjoint Measurement- for Quantifying Judgmental Data , 1971 .

[380]  K. Lancaster A New Approach to Consumer Theory , 1966, Journal of Political Economy.

[381]  S. Ciriacy-Wantrup,et al.  Capital Returns from Soil-Conservation Practices , 1947 .

[382]  William L. Fleisher,et al.  Cognitive Interviewing , 2019, Effective Interviewing and Interrogation Techniques.

[383]  Vidal Díaz de Rada Igúzquiza,et al.  Internet, Phone, Mail and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Don A. Dillman, Jolene D. Smyth y Leah Melani Christian. (New Jersey, John Wiley and Sons, 2014) , 2016 .

[384]  S. Hess,et al.  Heterogeneous preferences toward landscape externalities of wind turbines – combining choices and attitudes in a hybrid model , 2015 .

[385]  J. Rolfe,et al.  Do Respondents Adjust Their Expected Utility in the Presence of an Outcome Certainty Attribute in a Choice Experiment? , 2015 .

[386]  Rick Baker,et al.  Environmental Policy Analysis: A Guide to Non‑Market Valuation , 2014 .

[387]  W. Viscusi Chapter 7 - The Value of Individual and Societal Risks to Life and Health , 2014 .

[388]  Deborah Marshall,et al.  Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[389]  Andrew G. Meyer Intertemporal Valuation of River Restoration , 2013 .

[390]  J. Deshazo,et al.  Demand for health risk reductions , 2013 .

[391]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Ordering effects and choice set awareness in repeat-response stated preference studies , 2012 .

[392]  J. Martin-Ortega,et al.  Modeling self-censoring of polluter pays protest votes in stated preference research to support resource damage estimations in environmental liability , 2012 .

[393]  P. Boxall,et al.  Analysis of the economic benefits associated with the recovery of threatened marine mammal species in the Canadian St. Lawrence Estuary , 2012 .

[394]  Morten Raun Mørkbak,et al.  The first time is the hardest: A test of ordering effects in choice experiments , 2012 .

[395]  J. Louviere,et al.  Conducting Discrete Choice Experiments to Inform Healthcare Decision Making , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[396]  Peter Goos,et al.  Bayesian Conjoint Choice Designs for Measuring Willingness to Pay , 2011 .

[397]  Carl-Erik Särndal,et al.  The 2010 Morris Hansen lecture dealing with survey nonresponse in data collection, in estimation , 2011 .

[398]  J. Louviere,et al.  Discrete Choice Experiments Are Not Conjoint Analysis , 2010 .

[399]  J. Bennett,et al.  Choice Experiments in Developing Countries , 2010 .

[400]  B. Kanninen,et al.  Valuing environmental amenities using stated choice studies : a common sense approach to theory and practice , 2010 .

[401]  Trudy Ann Cameron,et al.  Differential Attention to Attributes in Utility-theoretic Choice Models , 2010 .

[402]  Justin L. Tobias,et al.  What are the consequences of consequentiality , 2009 .

[403]  Jelke Bethlehem,et al.  Indicators for the representativeness of survey response , 2009 .

[404]  Andrew Daly,et al.  Assuring finite moments for willingness to pay in random coefficient models , 2009 .

[405]  R. Tourangeau,et al.  Fast times and easy questions: the effects of age, experience and question complexity on web survey response times , 2008 .

[406]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health and health care , 2008 .

[407]  N. Powe Redesigning Environmental Valuation , 2007 .

[408]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk — Source link , 2007 .

[409]  D. O’Reilly,et al.  Using choice experiments to explore the spatial distribution of willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements , 2007 .

[410]  Michael A. Dimock,et al.  Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey , 2006 .

[411]  Glenn W. Harrison,et al.  Making Choice Studies Incentive Compatible , 2006 .

[412]  R. Groves Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys , 2006 .

[413]  Wiktor L. Adamowicz,et al.  Supporting Questions in Stated-Choice Studies , 2006 .

[414]  G. Kalb Methodology in Labour Economics; A Review of the Literature , 2006 .

[415]  L. Hurwicz Incentive aspects of decentralization , 2005 .

[416]  John M. Rose,et al.  Using Classical Simulation-Based Estimators to Estimate Individual WTP Values , 2005 .

[417]  Kenneth Train,et al.  Discrete Choice Models in Preference Space and Willingness-to Pay Space , 2005 .

[418]  D. McFadden,et al.  The New Science of Pleasure Consumer Behavior and the Measurement of Well-Being , 2005 .

[419]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  On visible choice sets and scope sensitivity , 2004 .

[420]  M. Couper,et al.  METHODS FOR TESTING AND EVALUATING SURVEY QUESTIONS , 2004 .

[421]  Mandy Ryan,et al.  Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. , 2003, Applied health economics and health policy.

[422]  Karl Rihaczek,et al.  1. WHAT IS DATA MINING? , 2019, Data Mining for the Social Sciences.

[423]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  A primer on nonmarket valuation , 2003 .

[424]  K. Train Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation , 2003 .

[425]  Rachel Croson,et al.  Why and how to experiment: Methodologies from experimental economics , 2002 .

[426]  Mark Morrison Rethinking contingent valuation: ethics versus defensibility? , 2002 .

[427]  D. Pearce,et al.  Economic Valuation with Stated Preference Techniques Summary Guide , 2002 .

[428]  J. Bennett,et al.  The choice modelling approach to environmental valuation , 2001 .

[429]  R. Dunford,et al.  Role of Knowledge in Assessing Nonuse Values for Natural Resource Damages , 2001 .

[430]  Ian J. Bateman,et al.  Valuing Environmental Preferences: Theory and Practice of the Contingent Valuation Method in the US, EU, and developing Countries , 2001 .

[431]  Robert Cameron Mitchell,et al.  The Impact of "No Opinion" Response Options on Data Quality: Non-Attitude Reduction or an Invitation to Satisfice? , 2001 .

[432]  I. Bateman,et al.  Efficiency Gains Afforded by Improved Bid Design versus Follow-up Valuation Questions in Discrete-Choice CV Studies , 2000 .

[433]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Vertically Summing Public Good Demand Curves: An Empirical Comparison of Economic versus Political Jurisdictions , 2000 .

[434]  J. Bennett,et al.  Yea-Saying in Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1999 .

[435]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  The visual communication of risk. , 1999, Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs.

[436]  F. Bonnieux,et al.  Contingent valuation methodology and the EU institutional framework , 1999 .

[437]  T. Brown,et al.  Trichotomous Choice: A Possible Solution to Dual Response Objectives in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Questions , 1999 .

[438]  Brian Bishop,et al.  Protest Responses in Contingent Valuation , 1999 .

[439]  P. Todd,et al.  Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart , 1999 .

[440]  K. Train Recreation Demand Models with Taste Differences Over People , 1998 .

[441]  Jordan J. Louviere,et al.  Perceptions versus Objective Measures of Environmental Quality in Combined Revealed and Stated Preference Models of Environmental Valuation , 1997 .

[442]  Jason F. Shogren,et al.  Starting Point Bias in Dichotomous Choice Valuation with Follow-Up Questioning , 1996 .

[443]  Kevin J. Boyle,et al.  Valuing public goods: discrete versus continuous contingent-valuation responses. , 1996 .

[444]  Dale Whittington,et al.  Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries , 1996 .

[445]  Thomas C. Brown,et al.  Information Bias in Contingent Valuation: Effects of Personal Relevance, Quality of Information, and Motivational Orientation , 1996 .

[446]  Marisa J. Mazzotta,et al.  Decision Making When Choices Are Complex: A Test of Heiner's Hypothesis , 1995 .

[447]  Richard T. Carson,et al.  Contingent Valuation and Revealed Preference Methodologies: Comparing the Estimates for Quasi-Public Goods , 1995 .

[448]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Bias in Discrete Response Contingent Valuation , 1995 .

[449]  L. Thurstone A law of comparative judgment. , 1994 .

[450]  J. Payne,et al.  How People Respond to Contingent Valuation Questions: A Verbal Protocol Analysis of Willingness to Pay for an Environmental Regulation , 1994 .

[451]  Alan Randall,et al.  A Difficulty with the Travel Cost Method , 1994 .

[452]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  Sample bias in contingent valuation: A comparison of the correction methods , 1994 .

[453]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Report of the NOOA Panel on Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[454]  J. Cooper Optimal Bid Selection for Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Surveys , 1993 .

[455]  Peter A. Groothuis,et al.  Testing for non-response and sample selection bias in contingent valuation: Analysis of a combination phone/mail survey , 1993 .

[456]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Evaluating the Effect of Alternative Risk Communication Devices on Willingness to Pay: Results from a Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Experiment , 1993 .

[457]  Jerry A. Hausman,et al.  Contingent valuation : a critical assessment , 1993 .

[458]  Barbara Kanninen,et al.  Optimal Experimental Design for Double-Bounded Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation , 1993 .

[459]  John B. Loomis,et al.  Sensitivity of Willingness-to-Pay Estimates to Bid Design in Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation Models , 1992 .

[460]  Michael R. Veall,et al.  Bootstrapping the Process of Model Selection: An Econometric Example , 1992 .

[461]  John C. Whitehead,et al.  Environmental Interest Group Behavior and Self‐Selection Bias in Contingent Valuation Mail Surveys , 1991 .

[462]  D. Dillman The Design and Administration of Mail Surveys , 1991 .

[463]  K. McConnell Models for referendum data: The structure of discrete choice models for contingent valuation , 1990 .

[464]  K. Boyle Commodity Specification and the Framing of Contingent-Valuation Questions , 1989 .

[465]  Janet Mancini Billson,et al.  Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research , 1989 .

[466]  S. F. Edwards,et al.  Overlooked Biases in Contingent Valuation Surveys: Some Considerations , 1987 .

[467]  Richard C. Bishop,et al.  Starting Point Bias in Contingent Valuation Bidding Games , 1984 .

[468]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Let's Take the Con Out of Econometrics , 1983 .

[469]  P. Schoemaker The Expected Utility Model: Its Variants, Purposes, Evidence and Limitations , 1982 .

[470]  J. Heckman Sample selection bias as a specification error , 1979 .

[471]  Stanley Presser,et al.  The Assessment of "No Opinion" in Attitude Surveys , 1979 .

[472]  R. Luce,et al.  Simultaneous conjoint measurement: A new type of fundamental measurement , 1964 .